|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] svm: rephrase local variable use for Coverity.
On 01/06/2016 08:24 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 01.01.16 at 04:14, <jtotto@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Coverity CID 1343310 No functional changes. Signed-off-by: Joshua Otto <jtotto@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 09:34:28AM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:The error message isn't fantastic, but the complaint that Coverity has is that we store intr here, then unilaterally store it again slightly lower in the function, no matter what value it had (with the early return presumably not being taken into account). The error would probably be resolved if lines 95 and 96 turned into "if ( vmcb_get_vintr(gvmcb).fields.irq )"This patch implements that change - as a general rule, is maintainer preference to resolve false positives like this by suppressing them in the tool or through code changes like this one? I'd rather suppress this in the tool as I am one of those people that Jan refers to below ;-) However, if it's too much of a hassle then this patch would be OK. -boris Asking such a question it would be helpful if you included the maintainers of the code in question, since to a good part this is a matter of taste, especially when ... _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |